2014 Supreme(AP) 776
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Katta Sumitra And others – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Vijaya Travels, Rep. by Managing Partner, Secunderabad and another - Respondents
M.A.C.M.A Nos. 920 & 1003 of 2009
Decided on: 21-07-2014
For Appellants : Sri G.Pedda Babu
For Respondent No.2: Sri Kota Subba Rao.
For Appellants : Sri Kota Subba Rao
For Respondents 1 to 4: Sri G. Pedda Babu
In case of death of deceased bachelor, age of deceased rather than his/ her parents shall be taken up for selection of multiplier.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 168—Accident---Compensation---In case of death of deceased bachelor, age of deceased rather than his/ her parents shall be taken up for selection of multiplier—Selection of multiplier basing on age of mother as did by Tribunal also cannot be approved---Age of deceased taken for selection of multiplier---Enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from date of filing appeal till date of realization.
Aggrieved by the Award dated 24.11.2008 in M.V.O.P. No.566 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short the Tribunal), both claimants and Insurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A No.920 of 2009 and M.A.C.M.A No.1003 of 2009 respectively.
2) The facts briefly are that:
a) The deceased K.Sandhya Rani was a Post Graduate in Micro-Biology. She wished to pursue her further studies in USA and appeared GRE and TOFFEL examinations. While so, on 28.10.2005 she received a call from Progressive International to come to Hyderabad. Due to heavy rains and floods during past few days, she took the bus and travelled from Guntur but was forced to stop on National High Way 202. The driver and conductor requested passengers to seek their own personal conveyance to reach Hyderabad, as bus could not be moved further. On the request of the bus conductor, one Sk.Khaja Basha, who was proceeding on Bajaj motor cycle bearing No.AP 12E 4673 towards Hyderabad city agreed to take the deceased to Hyderabad as pillion rider. When they reached near Ghatkesar Bridge, a Tempo bearing No.AP 10 U 8029 came in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed motor cycle causing the death of rider and pillion rider. It was averred that the Tempo driver was responsible for the accident and due to abrupt death of the deceased she lost her bright future and her parents became destitutes. On these pleas, the claimants who are parents, brother and grand father of deceased Sandhya Rani filed M.V.O.P. No.566 of 2006 against respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending Tempo and claimed Rs.16,22,000/- as compensation.
b) First respondent remained ex parte.
c) R2Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim by denying all the material averments in the petition. R2 opposed the claim mainly on the contention that the accident was occurred due to fault of the rider of the motor cycle. It also contended that the driver of the Tempo had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Finally it contended that the claim was excessive and exorbitant.
d) During the trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence.
e) Award shows, issue No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the eye-witness evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A.1FIR, Ex.A2 charge sheet, Ex.A3scene of offence of panchanama, Ex.A4inquest report held that the accident was occurred due to Tempo driver. On issue No.2 touching compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded in all Rs.6,81,000/- under different heads against respondents 1 and 2 as follows:
Loss of dependency - Rs.6,60,000/-
Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 3,000/-
Transport charges - Rs. 3,000/-
____________
Rs.6,81,000/-
_____________
Hence the appeal by both parties.
3) Heard arguments of Sri G.Pedda Babu, learned counsel for appellants/ claimants in MACMA No.920 of 2009 and respondents in MACMA No.1003 of 2009 and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in MACMA No.1003 of 2009 and respondent No.2 in MACMA No.920 of 2009. Though notice was served on owner of the vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf.
4) The parties in these two appeals are referred to as they stood before the Tribunal.
5 a) Challenging the award as inadequate, learned counsel for claimants firstly argued that the Tribunal erred in taking the contribution of the deceased to her family as Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering her qualifications and job opportunity she got under Ex.X1-appointment order, the Tribunal ought to have taken her monthly income at Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Learned counsel relying upon B.Ramulamma vs. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another submitted that in a similar case for the death of a computer engineering student, the